Does it take years to acquire aerobic fitness?

A lot can be gained in a 6 months! In fact the the most gains happen in the first 6 months. After that the gains start to level off and it takes longer and longer to see the same gains. If only I could have kept the same rate of gains my first 6 months, I'd be going for world records by now.

You probably do make the quickest improvement in the first 6 months, but that said, you're almost certainly going to be faster after 4 years of consistent training than you are after a half a year's worth...

Rapid gains occur in 6 months to a year, the subsequent years add to it and allow one to regain fitness to a higher level quicker if one has to take a break due to sickness, vacation, injury or whatever.

If you want to never run, never start because once you do you'll never stop.

Yes, it takes years to strengthen connective tissue and skeletal structure along with building the capillarization and mitochondrial pathways to deliver oxygen. This is one reason Kenyan and Ethiopian runners dominate because they spent their youth engaged in an active lifestyle rather than sitting on their butts through their formative years. And once they move into formalized training they progress rather quickly [2-3 years] due to the foundation of aerobic development they cultivated in their youth.

While very few can aspire to achieve their same level of success the basic principals they followed apply to everyone -Base building is the most important but often times the most overlooked phase for a runner. For a new runner the base phase could last for several years, it depends on the level of fitness you bring to it, the quality of the base training you employ and the rate which you improve. There is no magic pill, no short cuts, just a lot of hard, consistent work.

It's both encouraging and discouraging that most runners can expect to continue to improve for ~7 years.

Why do you say discouraging?

Because it can take a really, really long time to reach your potential.

That's what I figured but didn't want to assume. If you were able to reach your potential sooner what would you have to look forward to? That's one of the things I love about running, it doesn't require talent but consistency. You can compete with younger, faster, more talented athletes because you outwork them.

Since 2004 I've witnessed a lot of people on RWOL come and go. And while some were able to achieve a high level of performance the vast majority either quit or stopped trying to improve once the honeymoon phase was over. For some that lasted two years, others five.

"To be a consistent winner means preparing not just one day, one month or even one year -- but for a lifetime."

Yes, it takes years to strengthen connective tissue and skeletal structure along with building the capillarization and mitochondrial pathways to deliver oxygen.

For a new runner the base phase could last for several years, it depends on the level of fitness you bring to it, the quality of the base training you employ and the rate which you improve. There is no magic pill, no short cuts, just a lot of hard, consistent work.

Wouldn't the overall volume a runner accumulates be the most important factor in base building? Quality aerobic work (tempo runs, etc.) wouldn't typically account for more than 10% of the volume, perhaps a bit more than that at MP. Everything else being equal, wouldn't a runner who ramps up quickly to, say, 50 mpw, and maintains that level, build quicker than a runner who only manages to maintain an average of 20 mpw?

Instead of gauging progress in years, I'd be more interested in a general ballpark figure of how many miles (or hours) of running it takes to build an aerobic base fully. Is it 10,000 miles, 20,000?

In some cases, I was following a fast running, good looking, seductively clad woman. In others, I was making a half-hearted attempt to do speed work, despite my absolute hatred of it. In any case, the following results are intended for entertainment purposes only, not because I'm trying to be the next Speed Racer of running.

Yes, it takes years to strengthen connective tissue and skeletal structure along with building the capillarization and mitochondrial pathways to deliver oxygen.

For a new runner the base phase could last for several years, it depends on the level of fitness you bring to it, the quality of the base training you employ and the rate which you improve. There is no magic pill, no short cuts, just a lot of hard, consistent work.

Wouldn't the overall volume a runner accumulates be the most important factor in base building? Quality aerobic work (tempo runs, etc.) wouldn't typically account for more than 10% of the volume, perhaps a bit more than that at MP. Everything else being equal, wouldn't a runner who ramps up quickly to, say, 50 mpw, and maintains that level, build quicker than a runner who only manages to maintain an average of 20 mpw?

Instead of gauging progress in years, I'd be more interested in a general ballpark figure of how many miles (or hours) of running it takes to build an aerobic base fully. Is it 10,000 miles, 20,000?

I don't think cumulative miles or hours of running would do the job. It makes a big difference how those miles were run and in what time frame. Consider the difference in aerobic base and fitness between two runners, one of whom ran 10,000 miles in 3 years and another who ran 10,000 miles but it took him 10 years.

It's both encouraging and discouraging that most runners can expect to continue to improve for ~7 years.

Why do you say discouraging?

Because it can take a really, really long time to reach your potential.

That's what I figured but didn't want to assume. If you were able to reach your potential sooner what would you have to look forward to? That's one of the things I love about running, it doesn't require talent but consistency. You can compete with younger, faster, more talented athletes because you outwork them.

Since 2004 I've witnessed a lot of people on RWOL come and go. And while some were able to achieve a high level of performance the vast majority either quit or stopped trying to improve once the honeymoon phase was over. For some that lasted two years, others five.

"To be a consistent winner means preparing not just one day, one month or even one year -- but for a lifetime."

Yes, it takes years to strengthen connective tissue and skeletal structure along with building the capillarization and mitochondrial pathways to deliver oxygen.

For a new runner the base phase could last for several years, it depends on the level of fitness you bring to it, the quality of the base training you employ and the rate which you improve. There is no magic pill, no short cuts, just a lot of hard, consistent work.

Wouldn't the overall volume a runner accumulates be the most important factor in base building? Quality aerobic work (tempo runs, etc.) wouldn't typically account for more than 10% of the volume, perhaps a bit more than that at MP. Everything else being equal, wouldn't a runner who ramps up quickly to, say, 50 mpw, and maintains that level, build quicker than a runner who only manages to maintain an average of 20 mpw?

Instead of gauging progress in years, I'd be more interested in a general ballpark figure of how many miles (or hours) of running it takes to build an aerobic base fully. Is it 10,000 miles, 20,000?

Quality in this case refers to volume and intensity. Base building is not all slow running. For a beginner this may be true but as your overall aerobic fitness improves you'll need to tweak things if you hope to continue to realize adaptations.

You'll need to add some tempo-paced workouts. And I'm referring to workouts anywhere from slightly slower than 10k pace to marathon pace with the duration / percentage of weekly miles run increasing at the slower end of the spectrum. So, in this case, more than 10% of overall miles. Many runners consider 3 miles / 20 minutes @ comfortably hard effort a tempo run rather than 60 minutes @ MP which I feel is a more effective workout during the base phase. The workout would tend to not only be longer but less stressful, allowing you to recover more quickly and maintain higher weekly volume. The shorter, faster tempo runs would be more effective closer to our race-specific schedule.

The one problem with ramping up more quickly is tempting injury. Everyone is looking for the quick fix to enhanced performance when in my experience getting to greedy is often the downfall of runners. But like I said, for some the adaptations come more quickly depending on a host of variables.

I ran for decades, topping out with a one year peak of 1900 miles. It wasn't until I started running over 3000 mpy that I felt I was approaching diminishing returns. And even after 4 years where I averaged 3300 mpy I felt my endurance / stamina suffered this Spring because I skipped my usual base phase in the Winter. After averaging 68.7 mpw for the last 11 weeks - one week peak of 120 miles - I now feel much stronger.

How about 'aerobic fitness' such that it is not an element that is holding one back much from performing NEAR one's best in various running events, 800 through marathon.

O.K. Define "NEAR" I suppose, how about about 90-95% of potential? And after that is it really years of aerobic conditioning that helps or maturity and skill at training and racing.

How is the aerobic accumulation proved?

I do believe that people who are active in their youth are establishing a nervous system for sports, and if they pursue one nearly exclusively, skill to mount a successful build up, but I am not so sure I believe in this aerobic carry over for years.